Request Screen Capture Permission

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully discloses that the tool performs no actual permission request, has no prompt, and is only a compatibility shim. This gives an agent complete knowledge of side effects and expected behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the essential message: the tool is a no-op, why it exists, and what the real mechanism is. There is zero wasted wording, and the most important information ('no-op') appears first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a compatibility no-op with no annotations and a single optional parameter, the description is complete enough: it explains the tool's purpose, its lack of side effects, and the reason it exists. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's responsibility.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one optional 'device' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. Even though the tool is a no-op, the description fails to explain whether the parameter is ignored, validated, or affects behavior. The description should compensate for the bare schema but does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool is a 'Compatibility no-op' and explains why (screenshots use Portal / adb screencap, no prompt needed). This precisely differentiates it from the many screenshot-related siblings, which actually capture or read the screen, by identifying this as a stub.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: because screenshots are handled elsewhere and no prompt is needed, calling this tool is unnecessary. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool or an exact condition for using this one, but 'compatibility no-op' strongly implies it should only be invoked when some external contract requires it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.